From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] support for PMP used in TT BlackX Duet drive dock Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:58:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4D9E9605.7030304@garzik.org> References: <201104071854.10911.morpheus.ibis@gmail.com> <201104071908.10852.morpheus.ibis@gmail.com> <20110407190300.GA8841@mtj.dyndns.org> <201104072140.59548.morpheus.ibis@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:48112 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751167Ab1DHE6s (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 00:58:48 -0400 Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so3730530qyk.19 for ; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:58:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201104072140.59548.morpheus.ibis@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Herrmann Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 04/07/2011 03:40 PM, Pavel Herrmann wrote: > On Thursday 07 of April 2011 21:03:00 Tejun Heo wrote: >> I'm confused. Against which version is the patch generated? Upstream >> already has quirks for 4726. >> >> Thakns. > > this is what you get from running and editing a different tree (and being > lazy), sorry for messing it up. > > the correct (tested) code, without beautifications/comments: > > } else if (vendor == 0x197b&& devid == 0x2352) { > ata_for_each_link(link, ap, EDGE) { > link->flags |= ATA_LFLAG_NO_LPM | > ATA_LFLAG_NO_SRST | > ATA_LFLAG_ASSUME_ATA; > } > } > > third time's the charm > > Thanks > Pavel Herrmann > > PS: just to be on the safe side, this is the device detection from dmesg > ata8.15: Port Multiplier 1.1, 0x197b:0x2352 r0, 2 ports, feat 0x0/0x0 So you're gonna resend this as a real patch, right? :)